I still freakin say Ultron re-invents himself in phase 2, by manipulating phase 2 as a whole, and we find out in ant-man he how he was really created. Avengers 2, in this scenario, would still be an origin movie

Because Skynet didn't need to be explained/built up for the audience like Ultron will have to be.

You think they'd need a whole prequel movie to set up Ultron? Doubt it. In fact, the Skynet/Terminator analogy is probably going to come up *a lot* in the coming couple of years. It's not a hard concept for even the kiddies in the audience to grasp.

You think they'd need a whole prequel movie to set up Ultron? Doubt it. In fact, the Skynet/Terminator analogy is probably going to come up *a lot* in the coming couple of years. It's not a hard concept for even the kiddies in the audience to grasp.

No, what I'm saying is that Terminator had more time with which to introduce Skynet's creator and didn't need to explain Skynet as much while doing it. This isn't the case with The Avengers.

15-20 minutes. Not every movie has to be a 2 hour origin story (despite what many early comic book movies would have us believe). Look at 2008's Hulk. It was an unofficial sequel but it took care of the whole gamma accident, military-conflict backstory during the credits. Sure Hulk may be a household name and Pym is unknown to anyone who doesn't frequent comic shops but a charismatic actor could win audiences in less than a half hour. Television sitcoms do it all the time with pilots - establishing major concepts and themes in very little time.

JARVIS never sat well with me in the MCU. The concept of an intelligent AI helping to operate the suit largely originated in the first Iron Man movie and was shoe-horned into the comics 5 years ago in an (unfortunate) case of reverse influence (a problem that is growing because of movie popularity). While I found many, many problems with Iron Man 3, JARVIS was amongst the least of them. However, between the Mandarin, Extremis affecting soldiers and Stark, and multiple armors, JARVIS was an unnecessary addition to the plot that was far more of film-maker shoehorn than source material influence.

In short, and this is just an opinion,making Stark responsible for Ultron gives the character way too much influence while JARVIS seems like a crutch that actually casts a poor light on Tony's abilities. Comic book Tony Stark never relied on an AI to operate the Iron Man armor(s) to such an extent. (Extremis -enhanced comic Tony piloted 40+ suits directly via mind link, not having an AI act autonomously).

Again, these are all just opinion statements.

EDIT: And where better to establish a character who's most defining moments were presented in the pages of the Avengers (starting with issue #1 in 1963!) than in the Avengers movie itself. By using each standalone movie to build to a plot-light Avengers film every three years, the quality of individual films decreases (see: Iron Man 2). Each film should really stand alone. This will get me flack, but Hulk does not need to cameo in Iron Man and Hawkeye did not need to be in Thor. Characters crossover all the time in the comics world but the best stories usually focus on the title characters alone (obvious "side-kick" exceptions aside - War Machine, Falcon, etc.). The Avengers films are really the best places for franchise interactions.

EDIT #2: Before someone comments, Tony has had problems with AI in the past but it was NEVER a major plot theme prior to the MCU. I'm not pissed about the creation of JARVIS. That's an addition to the film franchise. Not having Pym involved subtracts from the Avengers legacy.

I asked three questions. You answered one.

Why do you think Avengers 2 has 15-20 minutes to spare? Are you aware that Whedon already had "too much movie" as it is, trying to service a large and growing cast of characters that are actually necessary for the story, and not just to appease Pym fans?

Also... Do you think JARVIS bucking Tony was overly simplistic? That was the complaint you put out there, and I don't think you can support that thought, so I'm asking you again.

On your issue the 'Mask in the Iron Man' arc was definitely a plot revolving around an AI problem Tony had prior to the Iron Man film. And Iron Man 3 did the same thing as Iron Man 2 but didn't decrease in quality. If anything, it was better for having flowed out of and into Avengers 1 and Avengers 2. So not being 100% standalone isn't the problem, or else IM3 would have sucked as much as IM2... which was actually a good movie, honestly.

The problem with Pym as this Big Time Avenger in comics transferring to films is that Pym is not a founder in the MCU Avengers, further, what happened in Avengers comics, where the rest of the team takes a backseat for Pym and his supporting cast for a whole arc... that's not available in the films, because the MCU films are about the team up aspect, where the big 3/4 are the center and they are the main figures in the climax. Having Pym be the main figure in the villain's origin and therefore the climax throws off the whole point of an Avengers film to draw these people together. In Avengers comics, it's to spotlight individual characters, but in the films, that's what the solo franchises are for.

You think they'd need a whole prequel movie to set up Ultron? Doubt it. In fact, the Skynet/Terminator analogy is probably going to come up *a lot* in the coming couple of years. It's not a hard concept for even the kiddies in the audience to grasp.

Another reason Skynet doesn't need an origin story is because Skynet is not a character, it's an offscreen plot device.

Why do you think Avengers 2 has 15-20 minutes to spare? Are you aware that Whedon already had "too much movie" as it is, trying to service a large and growing cast of characters that are actually necessary for the story, and not just to appease Pym fans?

Also... Do you think JARVIS bucking Tony was overly simplistic? That was the complaint you put out there, and I don't think you can support that thought, so I'm asking you again.

On your issue the 'Mask in the Iron Man' arc was definitely a plot revolving around an AI problem Tony had prior to the Iron Man film. And Iron Man 3 did the same thing as Iron Man 2 but didn't decrease in quality. If anything, it was better for having flowed out of and into Avengers 1 and Avengers 2. So not being 100% standalone isn't the problem, or else IM3 would have sucked as much as IM2... which was actually a good movie, honestly.

The problem with Pym as this Big Time Avenger in comics transferring to films is that Pym is not a founder in the MCU Avengers, further, what happened in Avengers comics, where the rest of the team takes a backseat for Pym and his supporting cast for a whole arc... that's not available in the films, because the MCU films are about the team up aspect, where the big 3/4 are the center and they are the main figures in the climax. Having Pym be the main figure in the villain's origin and therefore the climax throws off the whole point of an Avengers film to draw these people together. In Avengers comics, it's to spotlight individual characters, but in the films, that's what the solo franchises are for.

Why do you think that there won't be 15-20 minutes to spare?

Good lord, now we're arguing for the sake of arguing. These questions and arguments have been made multiple times.

EDIT: I'm done. I've said everything I needed to say and I'm done arguing for story loyalty and for respect to be given to the source material. This camp is divided by a ten foot iron fence and neither side's going to come over so I'm going to leave before I get an ulcer.

__________________"If you shoot, you're a killer. If you don't shoot, you have a death on your conscience. A death you could have prevented""What kind of a choice is that?""The one I make every time I pull the trigger"

Whedon: Right now it's not something I'm pursuing because I have so much going on in "Avengers" 2. Finding out that Coulson is alive would be an entire B story. And I already have too much movie. That's better than the other thing.

Whedon is on record saying that they have to take minutes out of the film. This tells me there are no minutes, much less 20, to spare.

If we want to say that not including Pym disservices the Avengers franchise we can talk about that, that's credible, that's opinion. If you want to say there's plenty room in Avengers 2 to insert Hank Pym, and it would be easy... that's silly, that's something that should probably get shot down.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like for one reason or another they're trying their best to keep Pym out of the MCU.

Granted we don't know how much of a focal point he'll be in the Ant-Man movie being that it's mainly going to be about Scott Lang, but with the Avengers sequel they'rel using a villain associated with Pym and yet he won't be in it.

I mean, does everyone behind the scenes just not like Pym?

__________________"I hate you, I hate you, I don't even know you and I hate your guts. I hope all the bad things in life happen to you, and nobody else but you."

I for one don't care if Hank Pym is in it. I never felt the character was interesting and since this is a new universe it doesn't have to follow the stories of the comics.

__________________
“The line between good and evil does not lie between “us” and “them,” between the West and the rest, between Left and Right, between rich and poor. That fateful line runs down the middle of each of us, every human society, every individual.”
― N.T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like for one reason or another they're trying their best to keep Pym out of the MCU.

Granted we don't know how much of a focal point he'll be in the Ant-Man movie being that it's mainly going to be about Scott Lang, but with the Avengers sequel they'rel using a villain associated with Pym and yet he won't be in it.

I mean, does everyone behind the scenes just not like Pym?

I don't think they are trying to keep Pym out the MCU, but again the MCU is a different universe than the comics. Maybe if Wright wasn't doing his film he would have debuted a long time ago.

If Pym is an old man here does he even need a villain? Wow look at grandpa fighting the killer robot. He'd die in 3 seconds. Liberty taking is ok that's the nature of film-making.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like for one reason or another they're trying their best to keep Pym out of the MCU.

Granted we don't know how much of a focal point he'll be in the Ant-Man movie being that it's mainly going to be about Scott Lang, but with the Avengers sequel they'rel using a villain associated with Pym and yet he won't be in it.

I mean, does everyone behind the scenes just not like Pym?

I doubt it.

Edgar Wright just prefers Scott Lang and thinks his origin makes for a more interesting movie than Hank Pym's (which is fair), and Joss Whedon couldn't find an effective way to fit him into The Avengers movies. This things happen when you adapt things.

I for one don't care if Hank Pym is in it. I never felt the character was interesting and since this is a new universe it doesn't have to follow the stories of the comics.

YOURE not interesting!

__________________If you are offended, remain offended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateJustin

no kid in fifteen years will recall what was going on in the haze of animated card game shows where cat faced japanese children yelled annoyingly and danced around and shot mushrooms out of their mouths.

Except you do it at the cost of Hank Pym's character. You effectively strip away his depth, and guilt when he's responsible for Ultron (certain continuities showcase him being responsible for building it, others take it one step further by showing how Ultron is the personification of Hank Pym's darkness). That is honestly more interesting to watch than another "experiment gone rogue."

Though I must say, after rewatching Avengers, it seems like Ultron was heavily foreshadowed as a method for dealing with huge scale events like the Chitauris coming to Earth (repeated dialogue featuring Phase 2, and how Phase 2 was designed to stop events like Chitauris).

How easy would this be? Wright sets Ant-Man 15-20 yrs,...in the future.
Pym's older, Lang steals suit, but Hank could still be viable in AoU. He could ditch Ant Man persona mid AoU, when he, or better yet, Ultron, somehow reverses his Pym particle stream, kinda making Ultron, responsible for making Pym, not the reverse.(see what I did there), then he gets BIIIGGGG, and wins the current battle. Take on GM persona.

How easy would this be? Wright sets Ant-Man 15-20 yrs,...in the future.
Pym's older, Lang steals suit, but Hank could still be viable in AoU. he could ditch Ant Man persona mid AoU, when he, or better yet, Ultron, somehow reverses his Pym particle stream, and get BIIIGGGG and wins the current battle. Take on GM persona.

Team-Lang!

why wouldn't you just set it in the present and simply not have Pym be old? Scott stealing the Ant-Man costume doesn't stop Pym from becoming a superhero. he still has the Giant-Man identity (among others).

Except you do it at the cost of Hank Pym's character. You effectively strip away his depth, and guilt when he's responsible for Ultron (certain continuities showcase him being responsible for building it, others take it one step further by showing how Ultron is the personification of Hank Pym's darkness). That is honestly more interesting to watch than another "experiment gone rogue."

that's only if you agree that he has no depth without massively screwing up. some people see Pym's strength in his impractical, impulsive, and adventurous nature. he's the genius that ignores boundaries, societal pressure, etc. he's the prototypical mad scientist. he just happens to also be a good person.

he's not Stark; a pragmatist. Tony sees a problem and crafts a solution. Pym, on the other hand, uses science to realize fantasy. that's what the audience should take away from the character. instead, people seem sad that he won't be seen as the creator of robot hitler.

Except you do it at the cost of Hank Pym's character. You effectively strip away his depth, and guilt when he's responsible for Ultron (certain continuities showcase him being responsible for building it, others take it one step further by showing how Ultron is the personification of Hank Pym's darkness). That is honestly more interesting to watch than another "experiment gone rogue."

Though I must say, after rewatching Avengers, it seems like Ultron was heavily foreshadowed as a method for dealing with huge scale events like the Chitauris coming to Earth (repeated dialogue featuring Phase 2, and how Phase 2 was designed to stop events like Chitauris).

Iron Man 3 foreshadows it even worse.

That said, what you've described from Pym is definitely another "experiment gone wrong" and all of it works just as well with Stark. Now, what you don't get is Pym. Widow and Hawkeye were founding Avengers at his expense. Lang will be focused on at his expense. Ultron will be made by the Avengers at his expense. That's rough for Pym fans. That said, Pym was never on the table. He was never an available option. And the quality of the story doesn't actually go down...

why wouldn't you just set it in the present and simply not have Pym be old? Scott stealing the Ant-Man costume doesn't stop Pym from becoming a superhero. he still has the Giant-Man identity (among others).

You effectively strip away his depth, and guilt when he's responsible for Ultron (certain continuities showcase him being responsible for building it, others take it one step further by showing how Ultron is the personification of Hank Pym's darkness). That is honestly more interesting to watch than another "experiment gone rogue."

Why is Hank Pym absolutely vital to have that added depth with Ultron. Why can't you have that same strong, engaging character element if you give the role of creating Ultron to Tony Stark or SHIELD? Have Tony or Nick Fury be the ones who are guilt ridden and horrified by what they've done.

I'm indifferent to Hank, don't love or hate him. However, I WANT Janet, she NEEDS to appear at some point. Janet is much more interesting to me than Hank. Also, considering that Edgar Wright has already said that Hank will be in the Ant-man movie, the argument that Marvel is trying to keep him out of the MCU is a little hard to buy.

I'm indifferent to Hank, don't love or hate him. However, I WANT Janet, she NEEDS to appear at some point. Janet is much more interesting to me than Hank. Also, considering that Edgar Wright has already said that Hank will be in the Ant-man movie, the argument that Marvel is trying to keep him out of the MCU is a little hard to buy.

The problem is not that they're keeping him out; they're not. The problem is that they're stripping him of the best parts of his character and of his biggest character arc.